6 ms·
Apple ignores DMA interoperability requests and contradicts own documentation
- pjc50 6mo agoDisappointed but not surprised. Their intent is not to comply, so you'll have to sue them at every step for every atom of compliance.
- actionfromafar 6mo agoIs anyone surprised? I suppose Apple will care when a lot of money is extracted from their bank account.
- Luker88 6mo agoIt's not about being surprised, is about finally having proof and being able to go to the lawmakers with something concrete. Apple could initially dismiss this as "doomsayers that talk about unreal future". Now this is proof. Let's not dismiss this ourselves. This is "I told you so", not "breaking news: nobody expected this!".
- u_sama 6mo agoNot surprised, I can't still install any app I want on an iPhone despite the DMA/DSA Acts pushing clearly in that direction
- anthk 6mo agoFSFE should top caring about Apple and giving awards to Microsoft and propietary software company supporters. Learn a thing or two from FSFLA and stop being a honeypot against libre software.
- nazgu1 6mo agoI wonder how it is that we, as the users, allow it when iOS started allowing third-party. After that we accepted that macOS is more and more closed platform. And I'm hearing constantly something like "Yes, that's wrong, but at least platform is secure". For me security is less about how much platform is closed and more about how educated users are. On the side note that is interesting, that when first iOS version was released Apple talked that "PWA" will be the future, and nowadays Apple do everything to suppress PWA ;)
- mastermage 6mo agoSecurity is not a fixed state, a closed system is not fundamentally more secure as the most vulnerable component is still within the system. The user.
- shepherdjerred 6mo agoClosed systems are fundamentally more secure. Principle of least privilege demonstrates this
- inetknght 6mo ago> I wonder how it is that we, as the users, allow it It's not like we have a choice. Either allow it or... what? Buy a different computer? With what money? Spend time installing a new OS? With what time? And for most users: with what skills? So long as businesses make choices about the devices you own, you don't really have a choice about "allowing" it to happen.
- nothinkjustai 6mo agoWhat? Obviously we can purchase a different computer, install Linux, etc. Apple doesn’t have anything close to a monopoly market position. I buy Apple because I don’t care about customizing my device, I just want something reliable that works and has a good design. Don’t paternalise me by implying I don’t have a choice here.
- 6mo ago
- traspler 6mo agoI think it is a valid article but it tries very hard to ignore that it seems like at least 12 (21%) of the requests are currently in development at Apple. If all of them are medium/complex requests then they are all still within the advertised timeline. So yes, technically nothing was released yet but I read at least an implied suggestion that nothing will be, which does not look like a conclusion that can be drawn at the moment.
- ptx 6mo agoOn the other hand, the article does say that "When the DMA took effect, it expected gatekeepers like Apple to deliver interoperability by default [...] Instead, Apple created a request-based system where each developer must seek permission for specific features" and "the process can stretch across months or years before developers see any practical benefit, even though the underlying right to interoperability is already supposed to exist"
- tpmoney 6mo agothe process can stretch across months or years before developers see any practical benefit, even though the underlying right to interoperability is already supposed to exist Not that I don’t think Apple is being petulant and maliciously compliant, but just because a politician passes a law declaring something to be so doesn’t mean that it is so. Apple built their platform for years assuming a lot of these things are and would remain private. When you design private APIs and locked down features, you make different choices and design decisions than if you make open APIs. Any interoperability was going to take months or years to get to, no matter what.
- musicale 6mo agoTFA claims that it needs to be built into the platform from the start. Which would seem to disqualify most Apple platforms.
- traspler 6mo agoI tried keeping my comment very focused on one point that jumped out to me in the article instead of commenting on the whole situation. Their process, delays and circumvention of the intent of the law are indeed very problematic. They have been fighting the same fight with the same techniques on all fronts where they have to open their platform up. Disappointing but something that can be fought by governments and organisations at least. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the style of this article but at least to me the way how it presents it's critique, arguments as well as details of rejections feels a bit deceptive and overly broad while the reality is a bit more nuanced, even if the core of the critique is valid.
- Lerc 6mo agoTLA overload strikes again. Reading this after a day of fighting microcontrollers made me interpret the headline quite differently. Ignoring DMA requests and contradictory documentation sounded entirely on point.
- 1e1a 6mo agoI too was confused
- Namidairo 6mo agoI too honestly thought that this was going to be a deep dive on the M-series PCIe controller or something similar.
- rayiner 6mo agoSame here lol.
- m463 6mo agoI wonder if some of these headlines are impacted by the submit article character limit "12 too long" might lead to acronyms. would be nicer if they could say: Apple ignores 56 interoperability requests under the Digital Markets Act, leaving third-party developers locked out of iOS and iPadOS.
- intothemild 6mo agoI wonder how much this will change now that Tim Apple, is out and John Apple is in. (probably none)
- benoau 6mo agoThe status quo is insanely profitable for Apple and Cook is still going to be "engaging with policymakers around the world" so I don't think they'll deviate from malicious compliance and stalling tactics any time soon. The perjury, contempt and referral for criminal investigation in the US carried no consequence, Japan and Brazil's regulations have been undermined by massive fees, as has the EU but they're afraid to fine them because of Trump. Except for the possibility of a $38 billion fine in India this strategy has been very successful for Apple: it's 5 years since the US ruled developers could use third party payments, 3 years since the DMA came into effect, and nothing has changed.
- Someone 6mo ago> 3 years since the DMA came into effect, and nothing has changed. Not nothing. In the EU, there are settings now to set default apps for browser, email, navigation, contactless payments, calling and messaging, for example. And there are alternative app stores now, AFAIK.
- zb3 6mo agoApple will listen only when executives are physically put in jail.. Europe can't do this, and I don't see this happening in the US soon either.
- podgietaru 6mo agoOr they start limiting sales of Apple Hardware. Not something I expect to happen either.
- Danox 6mo agoThey better hurry up the Mac Neo means more regular users coming on board in the EU….
- benoau 6mo agoIf blatant perjury didn't get anyone in jail nothing will... > “The testimony of Mr. Roman, Vice President of Finance, was replete with misdirection and outright lies. He even went so far as to testify that Apple did not look at comparables to estimate the costs of alternative payment solutions that developers would need to procure to facilitate linked-out purchases.” > … > “Mr. Roman did not stop there, however. He also testified that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what fee it would impose on linked-out purchases: > Q. And I take it that Apple decided to impose a 27 percent fee on linked purchases prior to January 16, 2024, correct? > A. The decision was made that day. > Q. It’s your testimony that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what fee it’s going to impose on linked purchases? > A. That is correct.” > “Another lie under oath: contemporaneous business documents reveal that on the contrary, the main components of Apple’s plan, including the 27% commission, were determined in July 2023. > Neither Apple, nor its counsel, corrected the, now obvious, lies. They did not seek to withdraw the testimony or to have it stricken (although Apple did request that the Court strike other testimony). Thus, Apple will be held to have adopted the lies and misrepresentations to this Court.” https://techcrunch.com/2025/05/01/read-the-juiciest-bits-from-the-apple-epic-court-ruling/ https://techcrunch.com/2025/05/01/read-the-juiciest-bits-fro...
- lostmsu 6mo agoBreak it up
- qubex 6mo agoOh the hoops I had to jump through to get UTM with JIT enabled on my 17 Pro Max with iOS 26…
- benoau 6mo agoThe article claims Apple said the OS doesn't control that feature lmao... > But Apple rejected the request from the developer and said JIT for non-browser apps was not a feature controlled by iOS.
- tpmoney 6mo agoWhether or not you agree with their position on JIT, their claim is more complete and nuanced than that. Their actual denial states: We have reviewed your submission and determined that your request falls outside the scope of Article 6(7) DMA because it is not seeking interoperability with a software feature accessed or controlled by iOS or iPadOS and used by an equivalent Apple service. Apple does not itself offer emulation functionalities on iOS or iPadOS and it does not offer JIT compilation for non- browser apps on iOS or iPadOS. Specifically they are arguing that since the only application on iOS that is allowed to do JIT is safari and that since they already have access to that JIT capabilities for other browser apps, the DMA does not require them to create a broader JIT capability for all applications. That’s not a wholly unreasonable stance though I can certainly see how the EU might argue that the capability existing for browsers at all implies it should be available for all applications regardless of their purpose. This does make me wonder about the swift playground app. Is that not using JIT to execute the swift code?
- nothinkjustai 6mo agoAre people honestly surprised that companies being forced by the EU to give up parts of their competitive advantage would be maliciously compliant? That’s honestly baked into the regulatory system. Make better legislation next time LOL I stand with Apple here :)
- retired 6mo agoReminded me of being a CS student. I got a list of 10 requirements for the software design. Most people implemented 9, struggling with the 10th. I implemented 6. Professor asked why I only did 6. Well, if I implemented 6 features and those would all pass testing that would have been enough for a 6/10 grade, which is enough to pass the class. The rest of my precious time I could spend on classes that I found more interesting.
- Zagitta 6mo agoWhy is it you feel the need to defend a trillion dollar company?
- wtallis 6mo agoDon't think of it as defending a trillion dollar company, think of it as pushing back against a weak, badly-formed argument. When there are valid complaints to be made, bad arguments pollute the conversation and make it harder to focus the discussion on the root issues that actually need to be fixed to achieve the desired outcome. If you don't like how Apple conducts their business, you really should want clear, open discussion of flaws in EU regulations that make them not effective against Apple, rather than threads full of blaming Apple for reacting to the incentives in front of them.
- benjismith 6mo agoI thought this pull-quote was interesting: "Interoperability only works when it is built into the platform from the start" -- Lucas Lasota, FSFE Legal Programme Manager To my mind, this is almost exactly opposite of true. Most new capabilities need to be incubated in private first, so that the APIs can get real-world usage and have a chance to evolve into a stable state before they become public interoperability promises.
- musicale 6mo ago> Interoperability only works when it is built into the platform from the start. So the solution is for Apple to offer Linux (or FreeBSD, etc.) as setup options for people who don't want to be locked into a proprietary, walled-garden, vertically integrated platform? That is an interesting idea. Apple has some experience writing hardware drivers for other operating systems, as they did with the Boot Camp drivers for Windows.